C.G. Varun Vs G.S. Ramya

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying, to quash the proceedings made in DVC.No.42 of 2024 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Murugesan For Respondents :Ms.A.Ayesha Parveen for R1 Mr.J.Chandran Sundar Sashikumar for R2

¶12

1/6

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

CRP.No.2535 of 2024

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by 1^st respondent/complainant under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1^st respondent filed a divorce petition against the petitioner and got a decree for divorce as early as 01.04.2022 and thereafter, by way of after thought, the 1^st respondent filed the present complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. He further submitted that the petitioner and second respondent/mother of the petitioner never had shared household with the 1^st respondent and therefore, the complaint preferred by the 1^st respondent was not at all maintainable and mechanically process was issued by the learned Magistrate.

¶18

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435 held that any person aggrieved by the process issued by the Magistrate can go before the very same Magistrate and raise preliminary objections with regard to the issues like existence of a shared household/ domestic relationship etc., If any order is passed, the aggrieved person can also take recourse to an appeal under Section 2/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CRP.No.2535 of 2024 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

¶21

87(vii). As there is no issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204, Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under the D.V. Act, the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal ((2004) 7 SCC 338) that a process, under Section 204, Cr.P.C, once issued cannot be reviewed or recalled, will not apply to a proceeding under the D.V. Act. Consequently, it would be open to an aggrieved respondent (s) to approach the Magistrate and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues. Issues like the existence of a shared household/domestic relationship etc., which form the jurisdictional basis for entertaining an application under Section 12, can be determined as a preliminary issue, in appropriate cases. Any person aggrieved by such an order may also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act for effective redress (See V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu V., (2010) 87 AIC 367). This would stem the deluge of petitions challenging the maintainability of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, at the threshold before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶22

In view of the availability of alternative remedy before Magistrate, as

¶23

held by Full Bench in Arul Daniel case, this Court is not inclined to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the

¶24

3/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

CRP.No.2535 of 2024 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 held that availability of alternative remedy before regular Courts, is near total bar for exercise of supervisory power by High Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in revision.

¶27

Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy in terms of order passed in Arul Daniel case cited supra.

¶28

The complaint preferred by the 1^st respondent seeking various orders under Section 12 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in nature and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, unless their presence is absolutely necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶29

17.12.2025

¶30

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ub

¶31

4/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CRP.No.2535 of 2024

¶34

To